Grey Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) How is the world ever going to change with thinking like yours? Allow me to first explain my motivations before proceeding any further in this, as it is crucial to make my point. If your self-proclaimed belief on love is at all heart-felt, then I am now sure that you are the face of modern day hedonism. So you may call this an ad hominem attack, though, I would qualify that this is not so; as there is no logic to attack. Instead, I just see the dangerous type of ignorance that is not only embarrassing but also speaks of a deep-seated immaturity. Let us examine what has sparked my ire so lovingly, if you will excuse the irony… “So I believe in a universal love. By that I mean, my love for 1 thing is no different from my love from another thing.(ie: I love chili dogs and I love martial arts equally.)” This was where it all begins sadly, when I see another attempt to quantify all love as one and the same. However, this was not the gesture of naïveté that proved to be so inflammatory. No, that belongs to this adjoining statement: “So to me, in my honset opinion. If I love a woman, she is loved just as much as I would love chili dogs or martial arts or sports or my health. There is no movie romance type love in my life. My love for a woman would never be more or less than my love for chili dogs, or if I had a dog.” It is frightening that you have already equalized your potential love of another human being to that of a food. Oh, my apologies, or that of a dog. My heart goes out to anyone that considers you for romance, that’s for certain. Spoke the fool “equally” and so it is on the grounds of equality that my rhetoric arrives. When something is equal, it becomes so that it is now interchangeable. The word can be adequately be defined as “Uniform in operation or effect”. So a living, breathing human being is worth only as much as martial arts or sports? You can only ever love someone equivalent to this? This seems like a vast underestimation of life and further calls into question if you even know what love is. Addiction maybe…condescension perhaps, but love, no. “Lol, I wont love a woman more than a chili dog or anything else that I claim as a love. I feel an attachment to my friends so what is the difference? Because I can have sex with a significant other? lol, makes no sense to me.” There is nothing to be found in a compatriot human spirit that could make you love them more than a chili dog. I am starting to sense a pattern and it’s looking like it spells out hedonism. That is what this is essentially, when you cut to the quick of it: just the indulgence of pleasures. These pleasures are never greater than anything else so that it is just seen as a part of experience. What else could push someone to treat the immediately apparent facets of pleasure as one and the same, but the broken arrogance of the close-minded? “I see as. If I felt the need/wanting for a chili dog then I go get one. If I feel the need/wanting of sports then I will go play a sport or go watch it. So it goes the same for a woman. If I had a girlfriend and I felt like being with her, then I will go to her and hang out.” If you did not apparently detest all humans to being equal to food and sports, I’d fancy calling you a blithering sexist. Luckily, your derogatory treatment of your own race ensures the equality in this twisted landscape. That is nothing if not victory for the blind hate-mongering that is so neatly justified by this passive-aggressive approach to the worth of love. I really do question if you even remotely understand what the concept of need is, if you have so clearly demonstrated a lack of what love actually is. By this own quote, you are attributing that you only value something when you desire of it, which is most assuredly an excellent way for building relationships. “Thats what I mean. There is no varying levels of love for me. Everything is loved equally. I wont love a woman more than a friend and vice versa. Universal Love, as I call it. Just trying to give a better explaination, not trying to attack you or anything.” How could there be varying levels of love when you don’t even understand what it is? You are not spreading loving equally: you are denigrating equally and assuming that your great capacity is (mistakenly) for affection! You go on to say that you will not love a woman more than a friend, are you implying that you cannot have female friends? This ambiguity is disturbing if nothing else, when you use a gender specifically for grounds on which to base your flawed viewpoint. “Is that bullshyte or what? Pretty much my stance on love is neutral. Its not optimistic and its not pessimistic. I pretty much feel that what I call "love" will be on equal ground with everything else I "love". Regardless if its a girlfriend... or a regular friend. Its just that all my "loves" will be on equal ground. What I call universal love.” You can neatly slap ‘universal love’ on as the headline for your perspective on love every time and it will still not fool anyone. This is not neutrality, this is an overall disdain for that which does not please you at a given moment. Do not presume to mock what many hold so dear and as the magum opus of the very fact of existence, no less. The love you describe is the very void of what you set out to speak of: there is no love that is not better named ‘want’ in this wretched system. This is a public criticism of your shameful exposition on, arguably, what love is not. You have gone above and beyond the indecisive that are caught between the cold fingers of cynicism or the bright zeal of faith. No, this is the eschewing of all logic or empiricism in favor of something that not only denies love, but goes on to deny it even the chance of goodness. Along the way you have again brutally slaughtered language, logic, and taken all efficient rationale as prisoner. The likes of which is contemptible to anyone who avails to any method of reasoned thought. I can only hope that you have stumbled on your point, meaning one thing and saying the other. Else, I can only hope that time does what little there is to change this affront on what it is to be truly human. Edited May 8, 2009 by Grey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagori Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) As eloquent and generally correct (to a point) as this topic is, why couldn't you have posted this in the topic itself? After all, Miso's thread was at least placed in the Spam (or smap...) forum, and I don't really see how your remarks merit any kind of debate. Anyway, that's all I'm going to say. Edited May 8, 2009 by Kodate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 No public criticism should be allowed without a possibility of recourse. It is in the debate forum because I believe that he should be allowed the chance to defend himself. Further, it is to show that this is not just for defamatory purposes. I also felt that the rather venomous nature of my critique should best be left for a forum where argument is encouraged. Unless the value of self-preservation in the face of the community is no longer important? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
